No need to apologise. And I fully agree with your post (which I have not quoted in full as it just above), except the bit that says that certain verses imply that the NT should not be used for correction etc. (But in any case you agree with me that it should.) My reasons for adopting a sola scriptura basis for my beliefs do not include the idea that the Bible claims these things for itself.

The verses you refer to in Paul's writings to Timothy are beloved of inerrantists and Fundamentalists, but as you rightly say, they cannot carry the weight which those good people seek to lay upon them.

Worse yet for them, the letter pulls the legs out from under their argument of sola scripture versus Church tradition:

II Timothy 1:6 For this reason I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 7 For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.

[cf. I Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery]

2:2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. 5 Also if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.

4:2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

And with I Timothy, their problems only get worse:1:3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. 5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of bishop, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An bishop, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.14 I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; 15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

[Where are the sola scripturists bishops and deacons? How then do they claim to be the pillar and support of the truth]

4:11 Prescribe and teach these things. 12 Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe. 13 Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching. 14 Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery. 15 Take pains with these things; be absorbed in them, so that your progress will be evident to all. 16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.

5:17 The presbyters who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not receive an accusation against an presbyter except on the basis of two or three witnesses. 20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. 21 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. 22 Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.

6:3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain....20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”— 21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith

Quote

It is always heartening when I can agree with an Orthodox post!

that's always nice

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Scripture was never meant to be used alone but within the context of the Liturgy and in accompanied to the writings of the Church Fathers. If scripture is the house, then the writings of the Church Fathers and the Liturgical services are the furniture, the lighting fixtures, the things that make it a home.

This is very interesting; I have not picked up this thought before from the various threads. I shall dwell on it.

One has to admit though (to continue your metaphor) that for a long time the average Orthodox man-in-the-pew (I know you don't have pews) has lived an outdoor existence, having the furniture but not the house. It was not till the 1990s, some 1840 years after the apostle Paul's visits, that they printed a translation of the New Testament into Albanian - and that was the 1912 Protestant one!

I don't know why they would do that, as Archbishop Fan Noli translated the NT, unless it is a Gheg/Tosk distinction.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Did he? I have never seen or heard of such a translation. Maybe it was never actually published, or maybe it was never available in Albania. Konstantin Kristoforidhi produced both Tosk and Geg versions, and a new version of his work was produced after the alphabet congress of 1908 in Monastir (Bitola). After that, Zef Oroshi produced some of the NT in the States, and Dom Simon Filipaj produced a good translation in Kosova. After the fall of Communism, the Orthodox Church reprinted the 1908 version in an attractive paperback format, and Protestants produced a new translation in modern standard Albanian. Now there has been a new ecumenical version. I have never heard the faintest hint of a Fan Noli translation. Have you more information?

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

[Where are the sola scripturists bishops and deacons? How then do they claim to be the pillar and support of the truth]

In my experience, they usually do have deacons, and these deacons actually follow very closely the Orthodox office of the diaconate. Bishops, on the other hand, they usually dismiss as no longer necessary, to the point that the NIV translation calls them "overseers," with only a cursory footnote that the verse is traditionally translated as "bishop."

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Did he? I have never seen or heard of such a translation. Maybe it was never actually published, or maybe it was never available in Albania. Konstantin Kristoforidhi produced both Tosk and Geg versions, and a new version of his work was produced after the alphabet congress of 1908 in Monastir (Bitola). After that, Zef Oroshi produced some of the NT in the States, and Dom Simon Filipaj produced a good translation in Kosova. After the fall of Communism, the Orthodox Church reprinted the 1908 version in an attractive paperback format, and Protestants produced a new translation in modern standard Albanian. Now there has been a new ecumenical version. I have never heard the faintest hint of a Fan Noli translation. Have you more information?

I just saw a copy once. It might have been a lectionary, not a Matthew to Revelation NT.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

This thread goes back to October 2007, a year before I was drawn into the forum. It is important for me to understand why Orthodox believe what you do about Holy Tradition, so as well as planning to read the two or three publications I mentioned earlier, I have also printed out the major posts on this thread. Those are probably largely written by GreekChef, Ukiemeister, Handmaiden, plus quite a bit of material by other members. I have not printed out anything written by me or Cleopas, since I already know what we believe. It may interest you to know that my selection of posts from the five pages runs to 39 A4 pages of Times New Roman size 12 font - that is, quite a lot of writing.

Why not just read the books I mentioned? It may not be true of you Orthodox, but if you asked an average group of Evangelicals what they believe on whatever topic, and compared their answers with the official theology books, you might find the two failed to coincide entirely. I want to know, not only what your Church's officially published writers say, but how you 'ordinary' 'men and women in the pew'* see things; though I sometimes wonder how 'ordinary' you are, or whether you are unusually well informed, articulate and interested in theology - "theology geeks", as one of your posts has it.

Anyway, if I fail to reply to every post submitted hereafter, and to attempt an answer to every question, please do not feel snubbed. Apart from other calls on my attention, I now have a lot of reading to do!

*(I thought Orthodox churches didn't have pews, but someone on a recent post mentioned "empty pews", so I guess that's yet another misconception that needs slaying.)

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

It may not be true of you Orthodox, but if you asked an average group of Evangelicals what they believe on whatever topic, and compared their answers with the official theology books, you might find the two failed to coincide entirely.

No, that's quite true with us as well.

Quote

I want to know, not only what your Church's officially published writers say, but how you 'ordinary' 'men and women in the pew'* see things; though I sometimes wonder how 'ordinary' you are, or whether you are unusually well informed, articulate and interested in theology - "theology geeks", as one of your posts has it.

Aw, shucks.

Quote

*(I thought Orthodox churches didn't have pews, but someone on a recent post mentioned "empty pews", so I guess that's yet another misconception that needs slaying.)

You'll find on this site plenty of information on that subject. Just do a search for "pew" or "organ," and you'll find volumes of information. Much, much more information than you could possibly want. And please, I hope you won't mind the following moderation; it really has nothing to do with you and much more with our posters here who like to use the subject of pews to divide the Church.

Moderatorial note to all, especially our more seasoned posters: please do not use this thread to talk about pews. That horse has been dead so long the vultures won't touch it. And really, do you want to go near something that vultures won't?

Without reading it all through, I think the answer would be close to, if not exactly, the formal pronouncements of the ecumentical councils that were held in the first, say 450 years of the church's life, well before the church began to ramify into Catholic / Orthodox, and later into Anabaptist / Protestant, and so on.

In fact, I think we are really debating four different approaches to Tradition, but writing as if we were debating only two. I am aware this is a recurrent theme of mine: different issues get blended in our posts, when they really belong apart. Anyway, if I am not mistaken, there are at least these four views:

- Holy Tradition, as held by Orthodox- Tradition, as held by Rome- tradition as maintained by Protestants- the Anabaptist view of Tradition and and scripture.

My use or disuse of capitals is quite deliberate there. Dealing with them out of order, I would suggest:

- The Anabaptist view is the one you good Orthodox are mainly attacking on these posts, that is, that there is no valid tradition at all and each believer, being endowed with the Holy Spirit as we are, is able to discern the right teaching direct from scripture by the Spirit's enlightenment, without needing the teaching of the Fathers, Councils, Reformers, theologians or anyone else. This view was held by the 16th century Anabaptists, but became more widely popularised over the past eighty years or so as a reaction to the debilitating effects of biblical criticism and the spread of Liberal theology.

- The Catholic view, which holds that there are two equally authorative sources of truth - church tradition and scripture. There is no need for what is revealed via church tradition to be hinted at, let alone specified, in scripture. This view developed in the Middle Ages, later than the filioque controversy and the split and is peculiar to Rome. Most Protestant books attacking tradition deal entirely, or almost entirely with this view and do not address the Orthodox position.

- The Orthodox view, which is that scripture alone is the receptacle of God's revelation, and all that is necessary for salvation and godly living is contained within its pages, but for the correct interpretation of this sole source of authority one looks to Holy Tradition (Councils, Fathers, liturgy etc).

- The classic Protestant view, which (I believe) is closer to the Orthodox view than to either of the other two. The Reformers did not expect anyone and everyone to refer only to the Holy Spirit within himself to gain proper understanding of the Bible, but laid great weight on the traditional understanding in the early church (which is why they retained practices like infant baptism, and continued to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary). We do not believe that our tradition is infallible - that the masters have spoken and no further correction will ever be needed - but we do remain firmly within the general parameters they set, and have preserved.

Believers' baptism is a good example of development resulting from further reflection. I believe (I have no statistics ready to hand, but I guess they are available somewhere) that most convinced and practising Protestants in the world today now practise believers' baptism - though in no way do we say that those who retain the older practice are excluded from life and grace.

Justification by faith is another example. The early Fathers did not really develop a theory of the Atonement, concentrating rather on the doctrines of the Trinity and the Person of Christ - that is, on the dogmas that needed defining in response to current heresies. That Christ redeemed us by his death and resurrection they always affirmed and preached; but they did not systematise a doctrine of how his death and resurrection redeemed us. They did not turn their attention to soteriology in their ecumenical statements. In the 16th century West however it became the major matter of theological debate and formulation.

So to answer ialmistry's question, we abide within that stream of tradition. It is more dynamic, more open to amendment and development, than the Orthodox view, and it allows freedom for individual believers to read and to discuss, and within the tradition to alter their views whilst remaining truly Evangelcial; but it does not make us each his own pope: that, I suggest, is more applicable to a fully developed Anabaptist view.

I think this may also point to a partial answer to the question, whether I ever feel frustrated on the forum. You see, I can sit down with my fellow Evangelicals and discuss points of theology - as I often do - or read theological books - also as I often do - and adjust my beliefs without creating a religious rift between me and my fellows. But the discussion on the threads here sometimes reads like, "The Church has spoken: there is no need to think about whether my personal beliefs need to change." This is such a new kind or idea of discussion, to my narrow Evangelical past experience, that I sometimes find it hard to 'get my head round it'.

I hope it is not in some way contrary to forum rules, but I think this might be just as relevantly posted on the sola scripture thread, so craving your indulgence, I shall do so.

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

So to answer ialmistry's question, we abide within that stream of tradition. It is more dynamic, more open to amendment and development, than the Orthodox view, and it allows freedom for individual believers to read and to discuss, and within the tradition to alter their views whilst remaining truly Evangelcial; but it does not make us each his own pope: that, I suggest, is more applicable to a fully developed Anabaptist view.

I think this may also point to a partial answer to the question, whether I ever feel frustrated on the forum. You see, I can sit down with my fellow Evangelicals and discuss points of theology - as I often do - or read theological books - also as I often do - and adjust my beliefs without creating a religious rift between me and my fellows. But the discussion on the threads here sometimes reads like, "The Church has spoken: there is no need to think about whether my personal beliefs need to change." This is such a new kind or idea of discussion, to my narrow Evangelical past experience, that I sometimes find it hard to 'get my head round it'.

I guess my question is why would one WANT to change/adjust/alter one's beliefs unless one was proven wrong? This is the part that I can't "get my head around." If I am wrong, I will alter my beliefs. But I trust ONLY the Church to tell me that I am wrong. I do not trust myself to determine if I am wrong or right, because my opinion is always colored by my (limited) worldview, my (limited) understanding, etc. Nor would I trust just anyone else for the same reasons (priests are a different story-- as they are both educated and ordained by the grace of the Holy Spirit). I would not be altering my views as the result of a conversation/discussion with someone, unless they PROVED to me that what I believed was contrary to the Church's teaching (for instance, if I believed that Christ was NOT born of a Virgin and someone pointed me toward Scripture, toward the Nicene Creed, toward all the traditions we have that say He was). Why would one adjust their beliefs based simply on reading or discussion that is not AUTHORITATIVE? Anything else is altering beliefs to suite our opinions, our worldview, our agendas (in some cases), and is subjecting God, His word, and His will to US. Rather, I want the assurance of adhering to proper belief, that which Christ intended and left for us. I want assurance that someone out there knows better than me (because I, in my sin and lack of understanding, should in no way be trusted to interpret Scripture on my own). I want assurance that I'm not just believing for the sake of believing, but rather that I'm believing in something real, someone real, concrete, the RIGHT belief (funny, that "right belief" is the translation of "Orthodox"). I really hope I'm making sense here. I'm trying, but having a really hard time articulating it.

I guess my response to the "it doesn't matter what I believe because the Church has spoken" thing is two fold:

In some cases, of course it matters. We must have personal belief in the Lord and all that comes with that, of course. I don't think I need to be more specific than that.

When it comes to doctrinal decisions, dogmatic decisions, etc... no, it really doesn't matter what I think personally of the JW's or whoever or whatever. The Church has spoken clearly. I obey. I will only change my beliefs if they are NOT in line with the Church's teaching. Why? Because I recognize Her authority on these matters. I recognize that those decisions were made by far more educated, enlightened people than me, in conciliar agreement, such that the Holy Spirit spoke through them. It doesn't matter what I think because it's not all about me. It's about God.

Please be clear that this is not said flippantly, to be taken lightly, or anything. It is very seriously, with great thought and belief and trust in the Church and Her guidance that I say that. Further, you have to realize that in ALL decisions of belief we NEVER make them on our own. We make them with the guidance of our spiritual father. For instance, matters such as fasting. The Church has given us a specific prescription for fasting that we should try to follow. However, we are not all the same people. It would be like a doctor prescribing 800 mg of Advil for a person with a headache, a person with a broken arm, and a person whose leg was just ripped off at the knee joint! Obviously one of those should probably have Advil, while one maybe something with a little more kick, and the other... well maybe just a hit over the head with a rubber mallet into a blissful state of unconsciousness. The point is that we always consult our Spiritual Father for guidance in all matters. He helps us determine the right belief... through our prayers, his prayers, his knowledge and wisdom, the Grace of the Holy Spirit (especially in confession, where much of this would be determined--- Confession being a sacrament and thus a conduit of the Grace of the HS), some research if necessary (my spiritual father sometimes says he needs to read about something I have asked-- he too goes to an authority above himself, he too has a spiritual father), etc. It's not just us, it's not just the Church. It's both. Make sense?

Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.Matthew 18:5

So to answer ialmistry's question, we abide within that stream of tradition. It is more dynamic, more open to amendment and development, than the Orthodox view, and it allows freedom for individual believers to read and to discuss, and within the tradition to alter their views whilst remaining truly Evangelcial; but it does not make us each his own pope: that, I suggest, is more applicable to a fully developed Anabaptist view.

I think this may also point to a partial answer to the question, whether I ever feel frustrated on the forum. You see, I can sit down with my fellow Evangelicals and discuss points of theology - as I often do - or read theological books - also as I often do - and adjust my beliefs without creating a religious rift between me and my fellows. But the discussion on the threads here sometimes reads like, "The Church has spoken: there is no need to think about whether my personal beliefs need to change." This is such a new kind or idea of discussion, to my narrow Evangelical past experience, that I sometimes find it hard to 'get my head round it'.

I guess my question is why would one WANT to change/adjust/alter one's beliefs unless one was proven wrong? This is the part that I can't "get my head around." If I am wrong, I will alter my beliefs. But I trust ONLY the Church to tell me that I am wrong. I do not trust myself to determine if I am wrong or right, because my opinion is always colored by my (limited) worldview, my (limited) understanding, etc. Nor would I trust just anyone else for the same reasons (priests are a different story-- as they are both educated and ordained by the grace of the Holy Spirit). I would not be altering my views as the result of a conversation/discussion with someone, unless they PROVED to me that what I believed was contrary to the Church's teaching (for instance, if I believed that Christ was NOT born of a Virgin and someone pointed me toward Scripture, toward the Nicene Creed, toward all the traditions we have that say He was). Why would one adjust their beliefs based simply on reading or discussion that is not AUTHORITATIVE? Anything else is altering beliefs to suite our opinions, our worldview, our agendas (in some cases), and is subjecting God, His word, and His will to US. Rather, I want the assurance of adhering to proper belief, that which Christ intended and left for us. I want assurance that someone out there knows better than me (because I, in my sin and lack of understanding, should in no way be trusted to interpret Scripture on my own). I want assurance that I'm not just believing for the sake of believing, but rather that I'm believing in something real, someone real, concrete, the RIGHT belief (funny, that "right belief" is the translation of "Orthodox"). I really hope I'm making sense here. I'm trying, but having a really hard time articulating it.

I guess my response to the "it doesn't matter what I believe because the Church has spoken" thing is two fold:

In some cases, of course it matters. We must have personal belief in the Lord and all that comes with that, of course. I don't think I need to be more specific than that.

When it comes to doctrinal decisions, dogmatic decisions, etc... no, it really doesn't matter what I think personally of the JW's or whoever or whatever. The Church has spoken clearly. I obey. I will only change my beliefs if they are NOT in line with the Church's teaching. Why? Because I recognize Her authority on these matters. I recognize that those decisions were made by far more educated, enlightened people than me, in conciliar agreement, such that the Holy Spirit spoke through them. It doesn't matter what I think because it's not all about me. It's about God.

Please be clear that this is not said flippantly, to be taken lightly, or anything. It is very seriously, with great thought and belief and trust in the Church and Her guidance that I say that. Further, you have to realize that in ALL decisions of belief we NEVER make them on our own. We make them with the guidance of our spiritual father. For instance, matters such as fasting. The Church has given us a specific prescription for fasting that we should try to follow. However, we are not all the same people. It would be like a doctor prescribing 800 mg of Advil for a person with a headache, a person with a broken arm, and a person whose leg was just ripped off at the knee joint! Obviously one of those should probably have Advil, while one maybe something with a little more kick, and the other... well maybe just a hit over the head with a rubber mallet into a blissful state of unconsciousness. The point is that we always consult our Spiritual Father for guidance in all matters. He helps us determine the right belief... through our prayers, his prayers, his knowledge and wisdom, the Grace of the Holy Spirit (especially in confession, where much of this would be determined--- Confession being a sacrament and thus a conduit of the Grace of the HS), some research if necessary (my spiritual father sometimes says he needs to read about something I have asked-- he too goes to an authority above himself, he too has a spiritual father), etc. It's not just us, it's not just the Church. It's both. Make sense?

One difference I've had since leaving Protestantism is that I don't have to have all the answers, because the Church has them.

As a Protestant, one question I had trouble with was with unbelievers (I was on campus) asking about the status of extraterrestials and the Church. The Orthodox priest who chrismated me, when I asked him in one of our early meetings, was simply taken aback by that being a problem, and simply stated "if it became an issue, we know God would give the Church the answer. We need not worry about it."

« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 11:50:57 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

why would one WANT to change/adjust/alter one's beliefs unless one was proven wrong?

I guess there can be different motives for entering into serious, sustained discussion on any topic - perhaps:

- to understand the other person- to convert the other person- to learn from each other.

When I enter such a discussion, I do not expect necessarily to come from it at the end with the same views as I started, and I think the same about the person I am discussing with. Either of us, or both of us, may learn from each other, and amend our views on whatever topic is engaging our attention. That is, my motive is the third of the three above.

As you know, I began with the first motive, simply as the context of my work in and for Albania, but soon discovered much that is attractive and edifying about Orthodoxy, and so began (and continue) to read for my own improvement. So I read with a new motive, expecting to find my views changing. Some ascribe a cafeteria mentality to me for this.

(The middle motive has never been my motive on the forum.)

To me, this is what a "discussion" is, and what it is for. One can, of course, 'discuss' with a book, that is, read an author whose views are different from one's own, but with a mind open to being convinced by him. Both in spoken discussion over the decades, and in reading, this has seen my beliefs change and develop - always, of course, within the variety that characterises Protestantism, which I strongly suspect is likely to remain the case.

Now it seems to me that the word "discussion" in the title of this forum carries a different meaning for you Orthodox people - maybe motive #1? It is only after three or four months of sending and reading posts that this has dawned upon me.

By the way, talking of reading authors with views different from one's own, you may be pleased to know that I have acquired Theodore Stylianopoulos on "The New Testament: an Orthodox Perspective - scripture, tradition, hermeneutics". Should make a good read, shouldn't it? (I am also mugging up on our side.)

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

When I enter such a discussion, I do not expect necessarily to come from it at the end with the same views as I started, and I think the same about the person I am discussing with. Either of us, or both of us, may learn from each other, and amend our views on whatever topic is engaging our attention.

With all respect, David, we welcome any change in your views through your exposure to Orthodoxy, but don't expect the same from us Orthodox to "amend our views" if it is not consistent with the Orthodox doctrines which have been in place for the better part of 2000 years. Some of these doctrines were understood from the beginning, some simply needed to be clarified and explained in more detail (not added to, not taken away from the Apostolic deposit of the Faith), but the doctrines themselves have not changed.

May I ask an intrusive question: Now that you know a little more about Orthodoxy, have you been drawn at all to venerate an icon?

May I ask an intrusive question: Now that you know a little more about Orthodoxy, have you been drawn at all to venerate an icon?

Good question, and I have pondered it myself! First let me say that I don't venerate it in the way I would if I were Orthodox, so we ought to replace the word venerate with something more neutral like display, like, admire or whatever. I have other pictures on different walls, some for beauty, nostalgia,or interest, some to remind me of God's blessings, which latter is probably nearer (a little nearer, anyway) to the Orthodox use of icons: e.g. photos of men whose life and writings have blessed me (Zinzendorf, Sangster, C S Lewis, even Tolkien, for his writings have a deeply Christian substratum and ethos). The icon falls into a number of categories - probably all of them.

At one level, because the icon is beautiful.

At another level, my choice of an icon of the Last Supper (o deipnos mystikos) sprang from my pleasure in Christian fellowship of any sort now, and in the Lord's Supper in particular, and in the fact that the Last Supper points us towards the final and eternal fellowship we shall have in Glory, when the Lord again takes the fruit of the vine with his followers. Reading Orthodox literature has certainly enriched my appreciation of the Communion service.

Thirdly, probably because it exudes (for me) something hellenic, not least because it was purchased in Chania: Orthodoxy and the Greek world are closely intertwined in my thought or feelings, and - without any political implications - I associate Orthodox southern Albania with things hellenic. I first discovered Greece in 1981, and there and in Albania have enjoyed much pleasure on holiday (not Albania), and much blessing in work.

Also, probably because it reminds me that my brethren in Christ are not all Evangelicals, and it is heart-warming to think of those who also know him, and with whom I shall share eternity, who are now in Catholic and Orthodox churches, starting with the Marriage Supper of the Lamb to which the Supper points forward.

And - a good deal less nobly, I fear - maybe there is something about me which likes to be a bit different, and 'not under law', not constrained by unbiblical conventions: some stern Evangelicals would frown upon an Orthodox icon being on my wall, but it is good to remind myself (and by it, silently, them) that I stand or fall by my own Master, as we all do.

« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 06:03:02 AM by David Young »

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

It seems to me that in our discussions you good Orthodox have referred a huge amount to Irenæus but hardly if at all to his contemporary Tertullian. Yet they seem to have taught the same about the relation of scripture and Tradition. Can you explain why I have this impression, and if it is a true one, why it should be so?

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

It seems to me that in our discussions you good Orthodox have referred a huge amount to Irenæus but hardly if at all to his contemporary Tertullian. Yet they seem to have taught the same about the relation of scripture and Tradition. Can you explain why I have this impression, and if it is a true one, why it should be so?

Perhaps because Tertullian fell into heresy?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

2) I believe the Führer used to say that if you have a fall-back position, you will fall back to it. I have never said that post-apostolic councils and Fathers were infallible in the way scripture is. We are bound only by scripture (echoes of Martin Luther). If there had been a Council in the 2nd to 5th centuries which defined 'eis', we would not be bound by it. We would regard and consider it with esteem and respect, but only to the scripture would we actually be bound. But now we really have reached a point of transition to another thread...

So it is.

Our priest often points to the role of the Theotokos had her saying yes to the angel. She is a bridge (and not a leap frog, like the IC would have it) between the OT and NT, prepared from Adam through the covenants of Abraham, Moses and David. God didn't have a plan B.

If there was a Council today, in which the whole Church heard His voice in it (John 10:1-14), which declared "it seemed to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28), Christians who accept the canon the Church has set would be bound by it. Of course, those who seek another Gospel are on their own.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2009, 06:18:43 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If there was a Council today, in which the whole Church heard His voice ...Of course, those who seek another Gospel ...

I think there are four views of scripture and tradition, and we are confusing them in our discussions.

Let us set aside the Roman view (tradition as a separate authoritative vehicle of new revelation) as neither Prot nor Orth agrees with it.

There remain:

- the Anabaptist view of 'sola scriptura', that is, that the scriptures by themselves give each individual believer all he needs to discover and practise the truth: this, I think, is the one you usually attack and demolish on this thread.

- the Orthodox view, that the scriptures are inspired and infallible, but must be interpreted within Holy Tradition, which is the same as the ongoing life of the Holy Spirit in the church and includes Tradition, the liturgy, the creeds, the icons, the Fathers.

- the classic Protestant view, which is that the scriptures are authoritative and sufficient, but that they teach us that the church is the foundation and pillar of the truth and will be led by the Spirit into all truth following Christ's ascension to heaven. Within this is included those unwritten teachings handed on by the apostles and referred to in (I think) Thessalonians and perhaps elsewhere - references like 'whether by word or by epistle'.

What I have here called the Anabaptist view was strengthened by the 18th century Enlightenment and its emphasis on human reason as able to reach truth; and by the American Revolution (or whatever you call it over there!) emphasising democracy and the rights of the individual (as has been said, religion by, for and of the people).

I think this Anabaptist view has become almost the default view of modern Evangelicals, especially in the USA but also increasingly in Britain too. But it is not the classic Protestant view, for the Reformers wanted only to reform the church, purging it of mediæval corruptions, and they believed in the church, the creeds, the councils, the teaching that the Spirit led the church to know the truth after the last NT writer laid down his quill (or whatever they used in those days).

Serious Protestant writing, which may not gain many readers, will make as good a job as you in demolishing the Anabaptist view, and will employ some of the same arguments. When early Protestants used the slogan 'sola scriptura', they were engaged in a debate with Roman Catholics, who had developed, especially in the late mediæval period, a system of two independent and equal authorities - scripture and tradition. But the Prots included in their slogan the Bible's own teaching of the ongoing teaching of the Spirit which led the church to know and codify the truth.

We ought to be debating the Orthodox view and the classic Protestant one, not the RC or Anabaptist ones. As I have stumblingly tried to write before in these threads - and perhaps especially in this one and the 'only true church' one - the question is not whether there is any value or authority in the Fathers, councils and creeds, but how much value and authority do they command?

I do not want at this point to get sidetracked into specifics, or we shall lose sight of the overall principle: specifics such as Ignatius's view of the Lord's Supper, or the early spread of infant baptism, or in what sense baptism is "for" the remission of sins. These matters are discussed elsewhere.

What Protestants believe is that the scriptures contain all that is necessary, and that the Lord entrusted them to the church with the task of rightly interpreting them, as led by His Spirit, as promised by his own lips. And that this promise was fulfilled. We do not ascribe infallibility to anything outside the scriptures, which alone are all God-breathed, but we do believe that documents like the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, give a summary of the church's interpretation of the contents of the apostles' kerygma, the rule of faith (regula fidei, if you like). The matters they contain are not all explicit in the scriptures, but they are the Church's interpretation and (we all believe) the apostles' doctrine - in short, they are true. Outside of that, whatever comes into existence is not Christian.

You have additional traditions which are not interpretations of the scriptures, which came later, for which you have no early or undisputed written testimony, which were (you believe) contained in unwritten oral paradosis, and which were not included in the formal decisions of the creeds and the four ecumenical councils which (I believe) we all respect.

I think therefore that you are requiring us to believe more than just the Church's interpretation of scripture (which the scriptures promise will follow their completion and which is, therefore, rightly included in the slogan 'sola scriptura').

We do not divorce scripture from its rightful context, that is the church and the following interpretation. If that interpretation be dubbed 'tradition', as I think it rightly can be, then the debate is not over whether we believe in the scriptures by themselves with no authoritative interpretation on the one hand, or the scriptures within Holy Tradition on the other, but how far tradition can rightly take us, and whether anything beyond that can rightly be required for salvation.

We - that is, Evangelicals - believe you have gone too far, and have added later traditions which have no warrant as part of any interpretation of the scriptures. As I wrote before, when the promise of 'all truth' was made, it did not mean omniscience or even pansophia: it meant (I believe) all that God wanted us to learn for salvation and for holy living, so as to know and please him.

But church calls, and I must away...

« Last Edit: February 15, 2009, 01:58:42 PM by David Young »

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

I had thought of starting a thread on Perssonism's teaching on sola scriptura, but decided the thread "Sola Scriptura - A Diversion From the True Word of God" would be an appropriate place to taste test, to spew out as poison, Perssonism's flavor of Sola Scriptura.

So Perssionism has made its own translation to suit its own dogma, like the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Quote

words or epistles "of theirs" the apostles.

That's a problem: SS. Mark and Luke are not IIRC ever identified as an apostle in scripture. Guess we have to drop those Gospels (and Acts too).

Come to think of it, nothing but the Tradition of the Church identifies Matthew as written by Matthew. Guess that''s got to go too.

The archeologists have found a Gospel of Peter. Maybe you would like to substitute it instead. Better yet, the Gospel of Thomas which says right up front "These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down," and it dates from around the same time as St. John's Gospel. Then there is the "Gospel of Truth," the favorite of the Valentinians, whose heretical ideas your are emulating.

Saint John identifies himself (but not by name) as the disciple whom Christ loved, and who testifies of these things and wrote down these things and saw the Lord...oops! I guess he couldn't have. Deut. 4:15ff forbade that. So I guess you can't take his testimony as true. In Revelation, he doesn't indentify himself as an Apostle, and he claims to have seen all those things that Deut. 4:15ff forbids, so I guess you can't take his testimony there either. Of course, since we have the character witness of the Church, we know his testimony is true.

James and Jude were Brothers of the Lord, and hence Apostles (I Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19). But they do not identify themselves as Brothers, but as slaves, of Jesus Christ, so I guess there epistles have to go. Luther thought James contradicted St. Paul's epistles, so called it an "epistle of straw" (which never, btw, indentifies its author with the James of the epistles claiming Paul). So much for the consistency of sola scriptura. St. Peter in his second epistle, in contrast to his first, only identifies himself as a slave of Christ, and not as an Apostle (although it claims in the first chapter v. 10-19 to have seen the Lord transfigured on the mountain). So, if we take the offered testimony, we have to keep I Peter but (since we have to eliminate the synoptics, who tell us St. Peter was of of those "with Him on the Holy Mountain"), have to drop II Peter, and with it your second witness to St. Paul's epistles.

Hebrews doesn't even tell us who wrote it, so I guess it has to go. Anonymous wasn't an Apostle.

So the Epistles of St. Paul claim that they were written by St. Paul. But they state (II Corin. 13:1) "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." So he testifies of himself. St. Peter (at least who claims to be saint Peter: you have no other corroborating testimony) does testify (II Peter 3:15-16) of St. Paul, "even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." But that not only leaves you one witness short, but St. Peter does not give you a list of the epistles of which he speaks, and his status as a character witness, as I pointed out above, you must suspect.

However, St. Peter promises in his second epistle (1:12-15):"12Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 13Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. 15Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance"as he had already provided for, as he states his first epistle (btw, the order is the order the Church put them in, not chronological) 5:1-2:"The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am also an presbyter, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, serving as bishops, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind."

As St. Paul had provided, as spokesmen of the Apostles, handing the Church to their successors, the bishop-presbyters Acts 20:16For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost. 17And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the presbyters of the church. 18And when they were come to him, he said unto them...25And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more [not, in time, the face of any of the Apostles], 28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. 32And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified...35I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."

[quoting a verse of the Gospel not in the Gospels. Of course, when St. Paul said this, SS. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John hadn't written a verse yet that has come down to us].

Titus 1:5For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: [i.e. those whose hearts are covered by the veil of Moses] 11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not...13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."

(I Timothy 1:)Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; 2Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. 3As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. 5Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: 6From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 7Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm...18This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; 19Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: 20Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme...3:1This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil...14These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth...16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;...6If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. 7But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness..11 These things command and teach. 12Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. 13Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 14Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 15Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. 16Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee...6:20O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

(II Timothy 1:)1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, 2To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 3 I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;..6Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. 7For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind...1111Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. 12For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. 13Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

The episcopacy of the Orthodox Church, keeping which was commtted to it by the Holy Spirit, stirred up the gift of prophecy which it received by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles (and any Orthodox bishop today, by the ontological whole of the episcopate and Apostolic succession, is only an arm's length away from the Apostles), determined the canon of Scripture and its interpretation.

In fact, so great is the episcopacy, the presbyters of Acts 15, that St. Peter, introduding himself as "an [note, btw: "a," not "the"] Apostle of Jesus Christ," nonetheless identifies himself as a "fellow presbyter" when he invokes himself as a witness of Christ and a partaker of His glory, to exhort his fellow presbyters, whom he identifies as the bishops (5:1-2), and the Apostle John, the disciple whom Christ loved, doesn't give his autority to his second and third epistles as neither the Disciple nor Apostle, but as "the presbyter."

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." Luke 10:16 You cannot have the Church's book without the Church.

3) All the Christian manuscripts of the OT are the LXX, or derived from it. The only exception is the Vulgate: Jerome took a Jewish Hebrew text and translated from that. The problem is that because that text had passed through Jewish (meaning those Hebrews who had rejected our Messiah) hands for several centuries, i.e. Jerome was not working from 1st century texts, it can still be said to be a Jewish text. He was criticized for doing so at the time.

In other words, the LXX was translated by those we would say were of the same Faith as us (symbolized by the legend of St. Symeon as being one of the translators, and his problem with the translation of "virgin" leading to him being told he would not die until he saw its fulfillment). Those Hebrews who accepted our Messiah continued to use the LXX and it Hebrew Vorlage (varient readings in the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the LXX, as do some pre-Christian scraps of the OT elsewhere). Those who rejected Him used another text type, which was approved at Jamnia AFTER the birth of the Church. The Masoretic text dates after Chalcedon, for instance.

In other words, the LXX has never been outside of those whom we would consider outside the Faith, which is a problem for Protestants: if you trust our Church to copy the Scriptures (and the King James Version, for instance, depended on late manuscripts from the Orthodox Church copied well over a thousand years after the autographs: as a matter of fact, I don't think they predate the schism of 1054), why do you reject that Church's interpretation. How do you know that we didn't "change" anything?

Case in point: all Christian manuscripts of the Bible have the Anagignoskomena/Deuterocanonicals: none lack them. And in this we are proved right in that the Jewish Talmud expounds on Sirach (the Hebrew text has been found in the 1800s). The Jews celebrate Hannukkah although their rejection of Maccabbees has deprived them of scriptural warrent (1 Mac. 4:56–59) for doing so (and for our Fundamentalist friends, the Gospels record Our Lord celebrating it (John 10:22-24). And the Jewish translation of Theodotion, done centuries after the rise of the Church, includes the disputed books (in fact, his transaltion of Daniel was preferred over that of the LXX by the Church, and it includes the "additions" in the LXX but not in the Masoretic text). So one can follow the path of the Apostles, or that of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

All this is evading the fact John of Damascus' argument fails a simple test: "Does God want to be imaged by us?" The answer is "Hell No." THAT is what scripture teaches.

And yet again, you evade my question. Does God speak solely through the Scriptures? You keep citing the Scriptures as your authority, so you MUST be able to answer this question.

I'll answer, but you won't like it---The Word of God does not come from the church:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Orthodox Church is not the same Church which wrote the Bible.

No one has the autograph, that is, the copy that those whom God insipired wrote down. For the OT, that is several centuries after they were writen.

(Btw, I don't know if Perssonism rejects what the Protestants call the "Apocrypha." The problem is that not a single Christian manuscript of the OT does not contain them. Not one. If you can't trust the copyist for his canon, how can you trust his text? The Jews' Masoretic text, upon which Protestantism rests (rejecting the Apostles for the rabbis) postdates the Church, and has the problem that the Jews celebrate Hanukah (although the only scriptural warrant to do so is in Maccabbess), the Talmud comments on Sirach (whose Hebrew text has now been found, and had a formative role on Jewish liturgy) etc. It dates from around the 10th cent., which is also the date of the oldest complete (according to the Jewish reckoning) Hebrew Bible, several centuries after the earliest manuscripts the Church has of the complete (including the "Apocrypha") OT).

We have only fragments in the second century (there is single fragment that may be dated to the first century). The earliest complete NT manuscripts of individual books comes from the 3rd century, of the complete NT come from the 4th century, after the Church had held the First Ecumenical Council. By the standards of ancient manuscript text history, still excellent (most ancient texts have their earliest manuscript around a millenium after writing), but still not the autographs, and dependent on centuries of copying. By those in the Orthodox Church.

We know that because the bulk of the textual evidence comes from lectionaries, the readings from the Bible chosen for the Divine Liturgy etc. on certain days, and not codexes, the ones the evangelicals take to their services (which, in contrast to the DL, are largely devoid of scriptural content). In fact, everyone having their own Bible wasn't possible until printing, 15 centuries after the Church was born and the NT written. Another source is the writings of the Fathers-except for a few verses, the entire NT can be reconstructed from their writting down the Faith as they received it from the Church.

The KJV translators, upon which Perssonism seems to base itself (correct me if I'm wrong), based itself on a few manuscritpts from the Orthdoox Church, dating a thousand years after the autographs.

Then there is the issue of canon: the first record we have of a canon like the one we (including Perssonism's, I assUme) have, is the Paschal letter of Pope St. Athanasius of 367. Before that, we have we have various lists of the preceding two centuries, which disagree among each other and with the present canon. Not a small issue: those other Gospels that St. Paul talked about were circulating and accepted by some. Archaeologists, along with the earliest manuscripts of the NT, have found these as well, including the "Gospel of Truth" of Valentinius, whose dogma of Christ bringing His body from Heaven and passing through the Virgin like water through a pipe seems to be replicated in the dogmas of Perssonism.

Bottom line: you can claim that the Bible does not come from the Church, but you cannot deny that you got it from the Church. Unless you go the Mani, Muhammand and Joseph Smith Jr. route and claim "another Testament" of the Biblical canon and text.

Since this is more on the teaching of Perssonism than St. John's teaching on De 4:15, if, Lord willing, I have the time to finish responding to this, I will do so on the appropriate thread (where maybe the posts from this thread on Perssnonism's teaching on sola scriptura might be merged. Or maybe a new thread on Perssonim's teaching on scripture might be warranted too).http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html

And I haven't even touched the issue of the OT here: It seems that Perssonism rejects the Apostles in taking the Masoretic text over the LXX. Given the allusions and quotations the Apostles take from the LXX, including what the Protestant reject as "apocrypha" (e.g. Christ celebrates Hanuka in John, although its only scriptural warrent is in Maccabbees), the NT doesn't give a list of the OT (and the Jews canonized their canon, upon which the Masorites depended, not until after the rise of the Church and the NT. In fact, the Jew Theodotion in 150 was still translating into Greek for the synagogue, for instance, what Protestants (and their brethren, the Vatican) have removed from Daniel (i.e. Susanna, the Song of the Three Youths, Bel and the Dragon) what was not in the Masoretic text, but is in the LXX), nor can you reconstruct the canon from the Apostles citations.

Quote

Today we find that material only in the Bible.

That's your assertion. Where is your evidence?

Quote

Therefore sola scriptura

The Church I know, so Christ I know and Paul I know, but who are you? You shouldn't wave the veil of Moses while invoking the name of Christ like a matador. You can get hurt.

« Last Edit: August 08, 2010, 09:54:04 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I had thought of starting a thread on Perssonism's teaching on sola scriptura, but decided the thread "Sola Scriptura - A Diversion From the True Word of God" would be an appropriate place to taste test, to spew out as poison, Perssonism's flavor of Sola Scriptura.

However, St. Peter promises in his second epistle (1:12-15):"12Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 13Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. 15Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance"as he had already provided for, as he states his first epistle (btw, the order is the order the Church put them in, not chronological) 5:1-2:"The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am also an presbyter, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, serving as bishops, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind."

(I Peter 2:)21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Quote

As St. Paul had provided, as spokesmen of the Apostles, handing the Church to their successors, the bishop-presbyters Acts 20:16For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost. 17And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the presbyters of the church. 18And when they were come to him, he said unto them...25And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more [not, in time, the face of any of the Apostles], 28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. 32And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified...35I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."

[quoting a verse of the Gospel not in the Gospels. Of course, when St. Paul said this, SS. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John hadn't written a verse yet that has come down to us].

Acts 14: 20Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe. 21And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, 22Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. 23And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

24And after they had passed throughout Pisidia, they came to Pamphylia. 25And when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down into Attalia: 26And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. 27And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. 28And there they abode long time with the disciples.

Quote

Titus 1:5For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: [i.e. those whose hearts are covered by the veil of Moses] 11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not...13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."

« Last Edit: August 08, 2010, 04:06:40 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Novatian isn't scripture, yet you ignored him as you do scripture, proving you have an agenda not to listen to any proofs for an opposing position.

As someone else already mentioned, Novatian isn't even considered a Father of the Church, so we've never really paid him any mind. You can't just take a shady character from our past, parade him around as being some kind of Church Father with great authority, and blame us for ignoring him. You would do better to find a Father whose authority we actually recognize as being beyond reproach.

Like our Father among the saints, John of Damascus. Given the title, we hear very little from Mr. Persson on St. John.

And yes, Novatian. LOL. Next Mr. Persson will joining the Muslims in accusing us of ignoring Arius.

I never said that, so don't put words in my mouth. As it stands, we rejected sola scriptura for 500 years before you came along to preach it to us, so our rejection of your fundamental premise has nothing to do with you.

yes, we had to wait a millenium and a half for sola scriptura to be invented. Odd that we managed to write, collect, canonize and pass on the Bible for that millenium and a half without it.

Why not admit the truth, you aren't an apologist, they must consider the merits of opposing positions to argue against them, you are a partisan.

Nor is it proper for you to deny my past, which I have never detailed for you. For the record, I HAVE considered the merits of opposing positions and found them wanting. Remember that I once believed as you do.

We once we lost, but now are found.

And Mr.Persson joined us asking what is wrong with prosyletizing. What's wrong with being a partisan of Truth?

15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (Mat 13:15 KJV)

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. -1 John 4:1-3

Anyone who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work. -2 John 9-11

You see, Alfred, you've come to an Orthodox Christian discussion forum to present a doctrine that contradicts what the Apostles taught us and we have always believed. Why should we believe that you bear the word of Christ to correct us? Are we to believe you based solely on what you boast in your arrogance about yourself? Are we to believe you because you throw a goodly number of biblical proof texts at us?

Didn't Satan do that at the wilderness Bible study he had with the Lord?

Quote

Remember that we too have the Scriptures and that we read them,

moreover, we wrote them.

Quote

so you can't say we've never heard the word of Scripture to be able to understand what it says. Why do we need you to interpret it for us?

Are we not to test the spirit of what you're saying to see whether it is of God? Your doctrine runs totally opposite to all we have received as coming from the mouths and pens of the Apostles. To us, you might as well be as one of the false prophets of whom St. John warned us in the latter of the two passages I quoted above.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Lets see you claim to be in apostolic sucession & yet say that someone (me) who finds an apostolic source as evidence of a veneration practice by apostolic Christians of the remains a martyred apsotolic Christian & that I trust these people as observing proper Christian burial rite as relying on unreliable hearsay?

The Church is Apostolic (ecclesia apostolica) inasmuch as all its members to the Last Day come to faith in Christ through the Word of the Apostles (John 17:20: πιστεύσοντες διὰ λόγου αὐτῶν εἰς ἐμέ) and cling to the Word of the Apostles (Acts 2:42: προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων), and this over against all departures from the truth of Scripture. Rom. 16:17: “Avoid them,” namely, those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.”Pieper, F. (1999). Vol. 3: Christian Dogmatics (electronic ed.) (411). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

1999? That's only 1900 years too late to be in contact with an Apostle to receive their teaching.

President Pieper also comes nearly 1800 years too late too.

Like you, he was sent by no one sent by the Apostles, hence not sent by Christ, therefore not sent by God.

Quia means he held, and required, the belief that the Book of Concord did not contradict Scripture, and because ("quia") of that, one must subcribe to its teachings.Why Bible-Believing Lutherans Subscribe to the Book of Concordhttp://www.wlsessays.net/node/385

I used to belong to the "Quatenus" Lutherans, who believe in the Book of Concord insofar as ("quatenus") it doesn't contradict scripture. Taking that to its logical conclusion, I left Lutheranism for Orthodoxy, as did Jaroslav Pelikan, one of the BoC's translators (in addition to being a renowned Church historian).

Some of the Vatican's bishops subscribed to the Book of Concord's promulgation, and bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland subcribe quia to the Book of Concord, but, besides the obvious problems of these "bishops" being installed outside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, since the BoC contains the filioque, it obviously contradicts the scripture of Apostolic Tradition, as condemned by the Council of Constanitnople IV, and these bishops therefore fall under the same condemnation. The EP comdemned the heart of the BoC, the Augsburg Confession, as heresy, and the Confession of Patriarch Dositheus, accepted at the Synod of Jerusalem condemned several articles that the Lutherans held in common with the Calvinists (and Perssonism, it seems) as heresy.

That being so, your authority claims that the Church is Apostolic (ecclesia apostolica) inasmuch as all its members to the Last Day come to faith in the filioque (explicitely taught by the BoC, and condemned accordingly by the Orthodox) as the Spirit proceeding from Christ, claiming that through the Word of the Apostles and clinging to the filioque as the Word of the Apostles Since we reject the filioque (and other heresies in the BoC), your authority, President Pieper, tells you in your citation Rom. 16:17: “Avoid [us],” namely, those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned" e.g. the filioque.

Of course, if your byline "Protestant-no filioque" (and the teaching of the Apostles) meant anything to you, you would avoid Pres. Pieper. And not try to seduce us with his heretical pronouncements.

Presiding over a synod which had no bishop sent by the Apostles (as outlined in scripture above) enrolled in it, he rests on no authority to define "apostolic" He was not consecrated, as all Orthodox bishops are, by Christs prayer of John 17:20 for them also which shall believe on Christ through the Apostles' word. No arm of an Apostle stretched over 1800 years to lay hands on him. As a presiding heresiarch, he in no way Acts 2:42 continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and communion with them in their breaking of the Eucharist bread and in their prayers, but persisted in all the many departures in the BoC from the truth of Scripture. As such we Rom. 16:17: avoid him, namely, those doctrines of his which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which we have learned from the Apostles and their hand picked successors in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Such avoidance includs his definition of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orhtodox Church, the corruption of whose Creed he subscribed to.

Btw, you disagree with Pres. Pieper in the Eucharist too.

The Episcopacy and its Apostolic succession is at the core of the Apostolic Church, as I've posted from scripture alone above, not going into the treasures of corroberation of this in the rest of the Tradition of the Orthodox Church.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 12:49:33 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I had thought of starting a thread on Perssonism's teaching on sola scriptura, but decided the thread "Sola Scriptura - A Diversion From the True Word of God" would be an appropriate place to taste test, to spew out as poison, Perssonism's flavor of Sola Scriptura.

I'm not sure if you touched on this, Isa, but I remember hearing somewhere (or perhaps reading it) that the suffix "-ις" in Greek means a continuity, a process or something along those lines. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that the tradition is continually being passed down strictly and with love. Is that close?

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Another parable He spoke to them: "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened." (Mat 13:33 NKJ)

For those who are wondering what Mr. Persson is talking about, some of the untaught and unstable believers in sola scriptura twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, this verse to mean that invisible church that they preach but the Apostles knew nothing about, the three measures of meal being the masses of the Body of Christ, which like HIm, is seen. Is that what interpretation you are following, Mr. Persson?

So why we rejoice in the spread of the Church, they mourn.

The successor of the Apostles, St. John Chrysostom, passes on their understanding:

Quote

And why may it be that they let pass the parable of the leaven, and of the mustard seed, and inquire concerning this? They let those pass, as being plainer; but about this, as having an affinity to that before spoken, and as setting forth something more than it, they are desirous to learn (since He would not have spoken the same to them a second time); for indeed they saw how severe was the threatening therein uttered. Wherefore neither doth He blame them, but rather completes His previous statements.

And, as I am always saying, the parables must not be explained throughout word for word, since many absurdities will follow; this even He Himself is teaching us here in thus interpreting this parable. Thus He saith not at all who the servants are that came to Him, but, implying that He brought them in, for the sake of some order, and to make up the picture, He omits that part, and interprets those that are most urgent and essential, and for the sake of which the parable was spoken; signifying Himself to be Judge and Lord of all.

What is the difference between this, and the parable before it? There He speaks of them that have not at all holden with Him, but have started aside, and have thrown away the seed; but here He means the societies of the heretics. For in order that not even this might disturb His disciples, He foretells it also, after having taught them why He speaks in parables. The former parable then means their not receiving Him; this, their receiving corrupters. For indeed this also is a part of the devil’s craft, by the side of the truth always to bring in error, painting thereon many resemblances, so as easily to cheat the deceivable. Therefore He calls it not any other seed, but tares; which in appearance are somewhat like wheat...

After this He adds the leaven to this similitude, saying, “The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened.” For as this converts the large quantity of meal into its own quality, 1819 ἰσχν.even so shall ye convert the whole world.

And see His wisdom, in that He brings in things natural, implying that as the one cannot fail to take place, so neither the other. For say not this to me: “What shall we be able to do, twelve men, throwing ourselves upon so vast a multitude?” Nay, for this very thing most of all makes your might conspicuous, that ye mix with the multitude and are not put to flight. As therefore the leaven then leavens the lump when it comes close to the meal, and not simply close, but so as to be actually mixed with it (for He said not, “put,” simply, but “hid”); so also ye, when ye cleave to your enemies, and are made one with them, then shall ye get the better of them. And as the leaven, though it be buried, yet is not destroyed, but by little and little transmutes all into its own condition; of like sort will the event be here also, with respect to the gospel. Fear ye not then, because I said there would be much injurious dealing: for even so shall ye shine forth, and get the better of all.

But by “three measures,” here, He meant many, for He is wont to take this number for a multitude.

And marvel not, if discoursing about the kingdom, He made mention of a little seed and of leaven; for He was discoursing with men inexperienced and ignorant, and such as needed to be led on by those means. For so simple were they, that even after all this, they required a good deal of explanation.

Where now are the children of the Greeks? Let them learn Christ’s power, seeing the verity of His deeds, and on either ground let them adore Him, that He both foretold so great a thing, and fulfilled it. Yea, for it is He that put the power into the leaven. With this intent He mingled also with the multitude those who believe on Him, that we might impart unto the rest of our wisdom. Let no one therefore reprove us for being few. For great is the power of the gospel, and that which hath been once leavened, becomes leaven again for what remains. And as a spark, when it hath caught in timber, makes what hath been burnt up already increase the flame, and so proceeds to the rest; even so the gospel likewise. But He said not fire, but “leaven.” Why might this be? Because in that case the whole effect is not of the fire, but partly of the timber too that is kindled, but in this the leaven doth the whole work by itself.

3. Now if twelve men leavened the whole world, imagine how great our baseness, in that when we being so many are not able to amend them that remain; we, who ought to be enough for ten thousand worlds, and to become leaven to them. “But they,” one may say, “were apostles.” And what then? Were they not partakers with thee? Were they not brought up in cities? Did they not enjoy the same benefits? Did they not practise trades? What, were they angels? What, came they down from Heaven?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. (1Co 14:26-33 NKJ)

I had thought of starting a thread on Perssonism's teaching on sola scriptura, but decided the thread "Sola Scriptura - A Diversion From the True Word of God" would be an appropriate place to taste test, to spew out as poison, Perssonism's flavor of Sola Scriptura.

The episcopacy of the Orthodox Church, keeping which was commtted to it by the Holy Spirit, stirred up the gift of prophecy which it received by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles (and any Orthodox bishop today, by the ontological whole of the episcopate and Apostolic succession, is only an arm's length away from the Apostles), determined the canon of Scripture and its interpretation.

In fact, so great is the episcopacy, the presbyters of Acts 15, that St. Peter, introduding himself as "an [note, btw: "a," not "the"] Apostle of Jesus Christ," nonetheless identifies himself as a "fellow presbyter" when he invokes himself as a witness of Christ and a partaker of His glory, to exhort his fellow presbyters, whom he identifies as the bishops (5:1-2), and the Apostle John, the disciple whom Christ loved, doesn't give his autority to his second and third epistles as neither the Disciple nor Apostle, but as "the presbyter."

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." Luke 10:16 You cannot have the Church's book without the Church.

NKJ Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. (Act 17:11 NKJ)

Yes. Searching the LXX, no doubt (cf. Acts 17:12 "Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks"). That's what the Jews in Greece, which the Bereans, as Acts 17:10 tells us, were: "Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews." So your citation tells us about 1st century synagogue practice, but not directly the early Church practice.

This is, however, one of the few areas where the sola scriptura folk stumble upon the Truth. Hence Schaff's summary has validity:

More importantly, the statements by those who know the meaning of "apostolic":St. Ignatius:.....

The Protestant Schaff summarizes:

Quote

And what had become of the disciples who were the first-fruits of the apostolic ministry? St. Paul had said, “The same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” How was this injunction realized? St. Peter’s touching words come to mind, “I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.” Was this endeavour successfully carried out? To these natural and pious inquiries, the Apostolic Fathers, though we have a few specimens only of their fidelity, give an emphatic reply. If the cold-hearted and critical find no charm in the simple, childlike faith which they exhibit, ennobled though it be by heroic devotion to the Master, we need not marvel. Such would probably object: “They teach me nothing; I do not relish their multiplied citations from Scripture.” The answer is, “If you are familiar with Scripture, you owe it largely to these primitive witnesses to its Canon and its spirit. By their testimony we detect what is spurious, and we identify what is real. Is it nothing to find that your Bible is their Bible, your faith their faith, your Saviour their Saviour, your God their God?” Let us reflect also, that, when copies of the entire Scriptures were rare and costly, these citations were “words fitly spoken,—apples of gold in pictures of silver.” We are taught by them also that they obeyed the apostle’s precept, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing,” etc. Thus they reflect the apostolic care that men should be raised up able to teach others also.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Fact remains, sola scripturists agree theologically with each other in far greater percentage (90%+)than those who follow the Bible + their traditions.

LOL. An assertion made does not remain as a fact. Between 3 sola scripturiest there are at least 4 opinions, and that only multiples as you go from country to country (e.g. compare the number of Protestant sects in England with the number in America), and across time (I'd say centuries, but most of your groups do not last that long before splintering).

We have gathered in Ecumenical Council at least 7x, and agree 100% in dogma, and have since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem.

The late Dr Walter Martin during a Melody-land lecture claimed some students quantified the internal agreement of Christendom, Orthodox Catholic, Protestant, on the major doctrines...and calculated it at about 80% agreement.

St. Irenaeus, who demonstrated the Apostolic preaching against the heresies

Quote

Bk III Chapter III.—A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in the various Churches, a perpetual succession of bishops was kept up.1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent origin, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,—a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, “Dost thou know me?” “I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.” Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, “A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” (Tit. iii. 10). There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

I have my doubts, as the same arguement can be made about Jews (after all, we share about 80% of the same Bible, or at least approximate thereof), and Muslims. Depending on how you skew the data, we are more than 80% in common with the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

"Judge not according to the appearance but judge righteous judgment" John 7:24

So even if an atheist tried to use our disunity against Christ, fact is, we agree with each other much more than scientists, philosophers, and atheists.

Philosophy and science need not be in conflict with the Church.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth